“We are going to frame the issue of climate change as more of a distributional issue,” said Dr Petersen.
Remember this very negative report about gas from Harrabin, ooh what, 3 days ago?…
UN set to warn countries over ‘dash for gas‘
Governments are likely to be warned next week that a “dash for gas” will not solve climate change.
A draft report for the United Nation’s third panel on climate change says gas cannot provide a long-term solution to stabilising climate change.
Gas is only worthwhile if it is used to substitute a dirty coal plant – and then only for a short period, it says.
The report will offer ammunition to the Department for Energy and Climate Change, which has fought attempts from the Treasury to switch more of the UK’s energy sources to gas with the projected “shale gas revolution”.
The UK hopes to emulate the success of the US, where shale gas has slashed energy prices and stimulated manufacturing.
A big, eye catching claim…..Pretty clear which way his report is leaning…..any chance he is against the use of gas?
Let’s see what the UN’s IPCC actually says (page 23) [getting to be a regular thing with Roger…having to read the original as opposed to his interpretation]:
GHG emissions from energy supply can be reduced significantly by replacing current world average coal-fired power plants with modern, highly efficient natural gas combined-cycle power plants or combined heat and power plants, provided that natural gas is available and the fugitive emissions associated with extraction and supply are low or mitigated (robust evidence, high agreement).
So the IPCC says green house gases can be reduced significantly by using gas to generate power instead of coal.
Not the inference that you might take, and were meant to take, from Harrabin’s headline….where is that overwrought warning about a ‘dash for gas’?
As the latest BBC report admits:
One of the surprising endorsements in the report is natural gas.
Natural gas is seen as a key bridge to move energy production away from oil and coal.
Ouch. A surprise for some certainly. Roger should stick to reporting rather than proselytising.
However not a mention of the word ‘Fracking’ in those BBC reports….the IPCC uses the phrase ‘natural gas’ but of course everyone knows this means mainly gas from Fracking these days…and you might expect the BBC to make a comment along those lines…but guess what….it sticks religiously to ‘natural gas’.
The Telegraph reports (and the BBC doesn’t) this comment from the IPCC about fracking:
Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the working group that drew up the report, said it was “quite clear” that shale gas – extracted through the controversial process of fracking – “can be very consistent with low carbon development and decarbonisation”.
Fracking can help to slow global warming admit UN scientists… and so can nuclear power
The Times also has a striking headline:
Shale Gas could stop the world from overheating.
And yet the BBC’s science reporters are avoiding the word Fracking, or Shale Gas in relation to this….and Harrabin’s pre-emptive report was no more than a ploy to try and set the impression that Gas is bad.
Not unlike his mate Matt McGrath who suddenly finds green subsidies, and the subsequent additional cost added to fuel prices, very interesting….now highlighting the cost to the taxpayer of green subsidies claiming getting rid of wind farms will push up costs…whereas the BBC showed no interest previoulsy when claims were made that green taxes were already making energy too expensive…..
Plans to curb wind turbines onshore will push up electricity bills
And note these two interesting statements from the report:
Issues of equity, justice, and fairness arise with respect to mitigation and adaptation. Countries’ past and future contributions to the accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere are different, and countries also face varying challenges and circumstances, and have different capacities to address mitigation and adaptation. The evidence suggests that outcomes seen as equitable can lead to more effective cooperation.
In other words the developed nations must pay large sums to the poorer ones for their historic climate crimes……
“We are going to frame the issue of climate change as more of a distributional issue,” said Dr Petersen.
The problem, as ever, is who foots the bill?
“It is not up to IPCC to define that,” said Dr Jose Marengo, a Brazilian government official who attended the talks.
“It provides the scientific basis to say this is the bill, somebody has to pay, and with the scientific grounds it is relatively easier now to go to the climate negotiations in the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) and start making deals about who will pay for adaptation.”
So the science is settled…and they have also decided who is responsible and therefore who must pay.
And what will you have to do personally? (apart from handing over your taxes so that a kind politician in the UK can hand it over to a corrupt one in what UKIP might call ‘bongo bongo land’)…
Behaviour, lifestyle and culture have a considerable influence on energy use and associated emissions, with high mitigation potential in some sectors, in particular when complementing technological and structural change. Emissions can be substantially lowered through changes in consumption patterns (e.g., mobility demand and mode, energy use in households, choice of longer-lasting products) and dietary change and reduction in food wastes.
So…lower your consumption, lower the amount of food you eat and change the type of food, don’t travel anywhere, use less energy at home…essentially change your whole life.
Don’t worry though…if you don’t get a say in all this the BBC’s Roger Harrabin is on hand to ‘hold the dodgy politicians to account’ and challenge their outlandish claims for you…oh…no he isn’t…he’s working with them to destroy your way of life.
Is BBC bias important? You can bet your life, and your lifestyle, it is.
From the IPCC:
“GHG emissions from energy supply can be reduced significantly by replacing current world average coal-fired power plants with modern, highly efficient natural gas combined-cycle power plants or combined heat and power plants, provided that natural gas is available and the fugitive emissions associated with extraction and supply are low or mitigated (robust evidence, high agreement).”
Note the term ‘fugitive emissions’. This is code for ‘leaks’. It has been shown that leakage of gas from long pipelines makes a greater contribution to ‘greenhouse gases’ than the carbon dioxide that is produced by burning the delivered gas.
The conclusion to be drawn here is that it is better to produce gas locally and for the UK that means shale gas and fracking. Go for it BBC!
‘It provides the scientific basis to say this is the bill, somebody has to pay, and with the scientific grounds it is relatively easier now to go to the climate negotiations in the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) and start making deals about who will pay for adaptation.”
In other words: listen up you folk in the ‘developing world’, we in the West will pay hundreds of billions a year to provide you with ‘sustainable’ forms of energy which, by the way, will not give you any electricity whatsoever when the wind isn’t blowing.
Should go down well. That is, when people finally wake up to what is going on.
“pay for adaptation”
Is that the adaptation to the none existent present day and future Global Warming of the Ideologues who have corrupted Science with an International Committee of Politicians supported by a combination of selected and censored science, used for fantasy computer model projections that coincide with wishful thinking, because wishful thinking is the purpose for the censorship and selection of the science used in the Computer models?
Or is it adaptation to a mini-ice age, predicted by a continuation of a correlation, tested by retrospective computer runs?
I think it would solve all this confusion and the pointless pages and pages of bullshit about fuel policy, if we just got the basics of the science right first.
There is no proof that the Greenhouse Effect has any effect on Climate Change, but guessing that it is, is essential for the continued existence of the IPCC, Environmentalists, and left-wing politicians and even Oil companies and Tories on the tax payer funded gravy train, for these people to censor all science that relates to changes in the Earth’s cloud Albedo.